wr2014_web_0

WORLD REPORT 2012The US Congress is percolating with legislative proposals to reform the legalstructure that enables mass surveillance, though none so far would protect theprivacy rights of foreign persons located outside US territory. But a world of globalizedcommunications and surveillance needs universal standards that are nottoo readily evaded or bent. Unless the development of privacy as a legal rightcatches up to fill these gaps, the right may well become obsolete.Global Communications, Global ObligationsWhat should be done?Some argue we must simply live with the reality of pervasive online surveillance,and that public expectation of privacy has eroded. But this is neither accurate nordispositive. Our understanding of privacy has in fact grown far beyond “a right tobe left alone” into a right of personal self-determination, embracing the right tochoose whom we share our personal details with and what identity we project tovarious communities. When applied to the digital world, privacy gives us someboundaries against unwanted monitors, and with it the essential freedom for personaldevelopment and independent thought.While global surveillance will require a complex and global response, the USbears a particular burden, as a leader in both cyber-technology and mass surveillance,to rein in the serious overreach Edward Snowden brought to light. Amongthe steps Human Rights Watch has emphasized are requiring judicial warrant protectionfor metadata, recognizing that privacy is breached when data is collected(and not just when viewed or used), revamping the FISA court to make it a moreadversarial and transparent body to check the NSA, and protecting whistleblowerswho reveal rights-violating national security practices.We must also recognize that the duty to protect rights in a world of globalizedcommunication cannot stop at territorial borders. International law of the twentiethcentury assumed that a state’s primary obligation is to ensure rights to allpeople in its territory or under its jurisdiction or effective control. This makessense, as generally one state cannot secure rights for people abroad without violatinganother country’s sovereignty. But there are circumstances when a governmentmust carry its human rights obligations beyond its national borders—such50